On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 07:40 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 01:36:22PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > There are a couple of options: > > > > a) leave it as it is > > > > b) change that set_nlink() in xfs into a > > > > if (nlink) > > set_nlink(nlink); > > else > > clear_nlink(); > > > > c) remove the printk from set_nlink(). This effectively makes > > set_nlink(0) an alias of clear_nlink(). > > > > IIRC your preference is c. What do others think? > > Yes. a) really isn't an option - we don't want to spew thousands of > useless messages during a log recovery for an operation that's totally > normal. b) is okay, too - but it's not just xfs that needs to be > covered, but any fs that support the concept of recovering from open > but unlinked inodes after a crash. It's just that no one else seems > to have regular QA for that code path. Since it's a ratelimited printk there won't be thousands of messages. I think this is just a cosmetic issue and lack of QA isn't a problem. If the messages are bothersome it can be fixed. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
